If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not really because this law will only be enforced when someone protests Obama.

You won't see this when say...Code Pink stages a protest in the middle of a Romney campaign event.

The law is the law. It's only going to be undone when somebody challenges it in the Supreme Court. They're not going to side with the plantiff. You can protest the President without blocking where he's supposed to be.

You mean like the sidewalk? C'mon Bridget do you REALLY think this will be used on someone why stands in front of the motorcade?

You obviously don't have any comprehension on how long before the POTUS enters an event to speak that the Secret Service secures the area...and how long people are held in the area not allowed to leave after the POTUS departs.

If you did you wouldn't have made the silly observation that you did above.

First of all, that's already a disturbance of the peace to block an area.

And yet it happens all the time. 1st Amendment rights and all.

Second, if they're blocking the President, isn't it possible that they're meaning to threaten him in some way?

Why does this suddenly become a problem when a Democrat is in office? This was never a concern by anyone the previous 8 years.

This doesn't just serve Obama. It's going to serve the next Republican President too.

And when it's attempted to be enforced when Romney or Santorum takes office the "rights" groups will howl and wail and gnash teeth and shriek to the high heavens about how draconian this law is and the very same Libs that voted for it will call for investigations into the legality of it.

Bush probably could have used a law like that.

And yet as evil as you Libtards claim he is...he never came up with a law like this nor did the GOP controlled congress.

That's a very ambiguous term that gives so much leeway that "where he's supposed to be" could be defined as the same state.

So now if I'm in Midland, Texas and I want to hold an Obama protest (this is THEORY ONLY...I'm NOT holding a protest of any kind) and he's in Dallas...under the "where he's supposed to be" hypothesis I could be arrested.

You mean like the sidewalk? C'mon Bridget do you REALLY think this will be used on someone why stands in front of the motorcade?

I think conservatives will suddenly be for the law when a Republican is in office. I do think liberals will end up getting arrested in the future.

Originally Posted by txradioguy

You obviously don't have any comprehension on how long before the POTUS enters an event to speak that the Secret Service secures the area...and how long people are held in the area not allowed to leave after the POTUS departs.

If you did you wouldn't have made the silly observation that you did above.

My apologies for my ignorance, TX. Doesn't this make things harder on the President though to allow nearly anything in the name of the first amendment?

Originally Posted by txradioguy

And yet it happens all the time. 1st Amendment rights and all.

One's right to swing one's fist ends at somebody's face. I'm pretty certain that if I tried to block the exits to the church tonight or tomorrow for service that I'd be arrested. Same thing with Wal-Mart (although I'm sure the customers would run said person over).

Originally Posted by txradioguy

Why does this suddenly become a problem when a Democrat is in office? This was never a concern by anyone the previous 8 years.

Because people are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't make a law bad or good.

Originally Posted by txradioguy

And when it's attempted to be enforced when Romney or Santorum takes office the "rights" groups will howl and wail and gnash teeth and shriek to the high heavens about how draconian this law is and the very same Libs that voted for it will call for investigations into the legality of it.

True, and I think it will be shot down.

Originally Posted by txradioguy

And yet as evil as you Libtards claim he is...he never came up with a law like this nor did the GOP controlled congress.

That's true. He just put up with people throwing things at the Presidental car and trying to come up to it the morning of inaugeration.

That's a very ambiguous term that gives so much leeway that "where he's supposed to be" could be defined as the same state.

So now if I'm in Midland, Texas and I want to hold an Obama protest (this is THEORY ONLY...I'm NOT holding a protest of any kind) and he's in Dallas...under the "where he's supposed to be" hypothesis I could be arrested.

I would think that if there's an organized protest that the city was informed about, then there's a place that the protesters would be assigned to be. When Bush came years ago to Winston-Salem, there was a "cage" where the protesters stayed. It wasn't really a cage. lol. It was a confined area that was sort of away from the people wanting to see the President, but when they left, they would pass the protesters by and see the signs. If anybody left the "cage" to go and disturb the ones waiting in line to see the President, then it was technically against the law. The officer could technically arrest them, but they usually told them to go back. The new law would probably insist on an arrest.

So, you can't just try to disturb the area where people are trying to get in. You can't block any other doors. The sidewalk is tricky. Technically, anybody can be there, but protesters do test their limits on it.

Oh heck, if the liberals pitch a fit, throw FACE up in their face. lol.

I think conservatives will suddenly be for the law when a Republican is in office. I do think liberals will end up getting arrested in the future.

Wanna bet?

My apologies for my ignorance, TX. Doesn't this make things harder on the President though to allow nearly anything in the name of the first amendment?

Hasn't for the past 200 plus years. They had no trouble saying everything from porn to flag burning was covered by the 1st Amendment. IF a President truly respects what the 1st Amendment says...then he wouldn't sign a law like this.

One's right to swing one's fist ends at somebody's face. I'm pretty certain that if I tried to block the exits to the church tonight or tomorrow for service that I'd be arrested. Same thing with Wal-Mart (although I'm sure the customers would run said person over).

No if you were harmed blocking the entrance to a church you'd be hailed on the left as a champion for the separation of church and state...and if you were harmed in any way lawyers would be falling all over themselves to represent you in your lawsuit.

You'd be a hero.

Because people are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't make a law bad or good.

No the Constitution makes it good or bad. And by the Constitution this is a bad law.

True, and I think it will be shot down.

It shouldn't have even come to that...this President and his followers believe in "free speech for ME but not for thee".

That's true. He just put up with people throwing things at the Presidental car and trying to come up to it the morning of inaugeration.

That's because he has a class and grace and understanding of the Constitution his successor will never have.

Such as possibly the mandate in Obamacare? Yes, those judges. They're there to determine the constitutionality of a law.

Not according to Obama. What they are about to do...according to him...has never been down before.

I would think that if there's an organized protest that the city was informed about, then there's a place that the protesters would be assigned to be. When Bush came years ago to Winston-Salem, there was a "cage" where the protesters stayed. It wasn't really a cage. lol. It was a confined area that was sort of away from the people wanting to see the President, but when they left, they would pass the protesters by and see the signs. If anybody left the "cage" to go and disturb the ones waiting in line to see the President, then it was technically against the law. The officer could technically arrest them, but they usually told them to go back. The new law would probably insist on an arrest.

The new law is designed as thuggery pure and simple. The current POTUS doesn't want toe view inside his armored limo spoiled by throngs of people that detest his policies and what he's doing to his country. He would prefer rose petals spread before him as he walks.

So, you can't just try to disturb the area where people are trying to get in.

Again define what the "area" is where people are trying to get in. Is it an exit off the freeway. Entrance to the parking lot? A street adjacent to the auditorium or stadium where the POTUS is speaking?

You can't block any other doors. The sidewalk is tricky. Technically, anybody can be there, but protesters do test their limits on it.

Again...as I said before...that is taken care of 5-6 HOURS before he POTUS arrives in town. People that the Secret Service have on a watch list in that particular town are investigated and interviewed 2-3 days before the visit and told not to come near the event The layers of security that go into a POTUS event make this law unnecessary.

Oh heck, if the liberals pitch a fit, throw FACE up in their face. lol.